Talk:National Treasury Employees Union

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

political activity[edit]

It's difficult to source something that doesn't exist anymore, since the John Kerry support is no longer on their web site. The liberal political activity by NTEU, however, is without question, as they have a long history of supporting liberal politicians and continue to post anti-Bush articles on their web site. So, how do I go about sourcing that? I'm new to wikipedia and am not familiar with the way things work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewsraven (talk • contribs) 22:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they've got such a history, it should be easy to source from newspaper articles on the topic, books, etc. (You don't have to be liberal to be anti-Bush, of course.) What got the edit reverted, though, was the unsourced assertion that mandatory dues money was used to fund political activity: a violation of U.S. labor laws. NTEU may have a small political action fund, like most unions do (nothing like as big as AFSCME's PEOPLE or the Teamsters' DRIVE); but if they do, it's funded by voluntary member donations. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you removed the entire section over a single statement in it? Why not just challenge or remove the statement? In any case, when I was a member 3 years ago, the political activity was not funded by a separate voluntary source that I knew of, the web site blared John Kerry, and is the web site not supported by the union dues? Every political statement I've ever seen on their web site is liberal in nature, always anti-Bush, anti-conservative, so it's not a stretch to make that claim.Old Crow (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section as written was a violation of our neutral point of view rules. If you can provide some reliable sources that back up what you're saying, go right ahead. Your observations might be correct, but nothing goes in here without being verifiable. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]